M4 Corridor around Newport PUBLIC INQUIRY QUESTION REFERENCE NO. : PIQ/156 RAISED BY: The Inspector DATE: 31/01/18 RESPONDED BY: Matthew Jones DATE: 02/03/18 SUBJECT: The Welsh Government s response to Mr Waller s suggested alternative (Objectors Suggested Alternative 28) Question: During Inquiry session on 31/01/2018, Mr Wadrup queried whether the Welsh Government s consideration of Mr Waller s suggested alternative had included consideration of all the components he had mentioned. Welsh Government agreed to meet with Mr Waller to confirm his suggested components and then provide a further written response if required. Response: Matt Jones of Welsh Government and Paul Snook of Costain Vinci Joint Venture met with Mr Waller on 31/01/18 to discuss the list of components of his suggested alternative. Mr Waller agreed to check his records for his position regarding J28. Mr Waller s email of the same day is attached to this PIQ. This confirmed Mr Waller wished his suggested alternative to include: A) significant improvements to public transport, e.g. through further development of the Metro to assist east west transport in south east Wales, building a light rail/tram route along line of A48 maybe with more park and ride, better provision for buses in Newport; B) better promotion of public transport including working with individuals on their travel options; C) works to the existing M4, including closure of J27, online widening where this is feasible, making it a truly SMART motorway, widening/additional tunnel at Brynglas if this proves necessary; D) non motorway improvements to roads in Newport to relieve congestion, e.g. increasing capacity of some of the junctions on the SDR, and improvements to other roads where this can be done without unacceptable environmental impact. Again, the purpose of this would be to take some journeys off the motorway. The Welsh Government s letter to Mr Waller dated 19/10/17 (WG Ref: qa1174612/alt054) considered each of these measures individually and concluded that individually, or in combination, they would not sufficiently address the problems or achieve the objectives of the Scheme. A summary is included within this PIQ, as well as further information on the appraisal of the measures in combination.
A) and B) Public Transport Upgrades: i) Metro ii) Light rail along A48 iii) More park & ride; Improved bus provision iv) Promotion i), iii) & iv) The 2013 Public Transport Overview report (Document 4.3.16) considered a range of possible public transport and Metro measures that had potential to relieve M4 motorway traffic. The appraisal showed around 3% of motorway traffic would transfer, and that even a doubling of public transport usage in the Newport area would only achieve up to a 5% reduction in motorway traffic. In light of recent progress with the Metro, the 2016 Updated Public Transport Overview Report (Document 2.4.19) reiterated that public transport measures, including those of the Metro, could not sufficiently address the problems on the M4 around Newport, only reducing traffic flows by less than 4%. ID 73 summarises all the evidence in relation to modal shift as a result of further public transport provision. Even with ambitious assumptions in favour of public transport and including improved bus provision the amount of traffic taken from the M4 is less than 6%. In their own right, interventions to enhance rail servces, provide park and ride faciltiies and to enhance bus services may offer value for money although it is not possible to draw any specific conclusions in this case due to the general nature of the proposals. It should also be borne in mind that, given the findings of the Public Transport Overview Report, such measures are likely to have an insignificant impact on travel behaviour and would not therefore overcome the problems on the M4. Therefore, whilst individual public transport interventions may have a positive BCR in their own right, they will fail to deliver benefits in the same order of magnitude as the Published Scheme. ii) No viable light rail route along the A48 corridor in Newport has been identified through previous public transport studies, and as such is not deemed a feasible component to include within this appraisal. As a general point, it should be noted that the construction of new light rail lines are very high capital cost interventions. Given that there is an existing heavy rail network providing connectivity between Cardiff and Newport (as well as competing bus services), the economic efficiency of a new light rail route is subject to doubt. Summary: Reduction in motorway traffic of less than 6% in the design year of 2037 C) Works to Existing M4: i) Closure of J27 ii) Online widening (including at Brynglas if required) iii) SMART motorway i) The Objectors Suggested Alternatives Report (Document 4.7.2) appraised a combination of junction closures: J25 closure of east facing slip roads, J26 closure of east facing slip roads and J27 full closure. It demonstrated that this would result in only a minor reduction in peak hour M4 traffic, generally less than 5%. However, a direct consequence of of re routing of traffic to the local road network throughout Newport, alternative M4 junctions would experience significantly increased local congestion at these points, resulting in a negative Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR). A negative BCR means that the option would actually have a negative overall impact on users and would fail to deliver benefts. Whist the closure of Junction 27 in isolation has not undergone an economic appraisal, it would have the most significant impact on local road traffic conditions, because this junction provides the most direct alternative to the heavily congested Junction 28, particularly for traffic approaching along the A467 Forge Lane. As well as adding to congestion on Forge Lane, a ripple effect could arise could arise with the added consequence of increased
traffic using the local network through north Newport to access the M4 at Junction 26. The fact the package of junction closures performs poorly suggests that the economic case for closing Junction 27 is poor. Increased congestion on the local road network would also impede public transport. Whilst closure of only J27 would have less of a negative impact on the local road network, it would also have a negligible impact on mainline traffic flows. Summary: Minor impact on motorway traffic of generally less than 5% ii) The Objectors Suggested Alternatives report appraised Alternative 19: Online Widening of Existing M4 including Brynglas Tunnels. This Alternative considered dual 4 lane motorway between J29 and J26, and a dual 3 lane motorway between J26 and J25. This Alternative would increase capacity along the existing motorway between J29 and J25, including at the existing bottleneck at the Brynglas Tunnels between J25A and J26. This would alleviate congestion problems along this section of motorway. However, this would attract more traffic, causing the section between J24 and J25 (where there would be no increase in capacity) to replace the Brynglas Tunnels as the most congested section. The Alternative would not provide sufficient long term capacity and congestion would remain, so that the benefits achieved would be significantly less than with Published Scheme. The form of online widening exhibits a very poor BCR of 0.15 (PIQ 152) and benefits of less than 100m in Present Value terms. Putting aside the issue of cost, this suggests that online widening on any section of the existing M4 will deliver very modest benefits as compared with the Published Scheme. The extent of widening considered in Alternative 19 was deemed the most feasible in terms of buildability and land impacts. It is therefore assumed that Mr Waller s proposal of online widening where this is feasible including widening/additional tunnel at Brynglas if this proves necessary is broadly the same as the layout appraised in Alternative 19. It would therefore also cause congestion to shift to an un widened section, resulting in a low BCR. Summary: BCR of significantly less than 1. iii) A Smart Motorway is one that uses active traffic management (ATM) to increase capacity by use of variable speed limits (VSL) and hard shoulder running at periods of peak traffic. The existing M4 already contains a VSL system. Full Smart Motorways, however, are designed to meet a minimum criteria in terms of horizontal and vertical geometry and visibility. The existing M4 around Newport falls short of these standards, particularly in terms of visibility, and does not have a continuous hard shoulder. This would require considerable online widening over a length similar to that proposed in Objectors Suggested Alternative 19 and described in the preceding section of this PIQ. The result of the online widening described in the preceding section would be the shifting of congestion from the current bottleneck at the Brynglas Tunnels to the section between J24 and J25 (where there would be no increase in capacity). Parts of the J24 to J25 section fall short of visibility requirements and do not have a continuous hardshoulder. Therefore, in order to install a Smart Motorway along this section,a to address the shifted congestion associated with the online widening measure, further widening would be required. This additional J24 J25 widening would be largely adjacent to residential areas, significantly increasing the cost of the online widening measure as well as its impact on property and land take.
The alternative would be to consider expansion of the existing VSL system (as opposed to Smart Motorway) across the length of the M4 around Newport without requirement for on line widening. VSL is already in place between Junction 24 and Junction 28, and clearly the benefits of VSL on the most significant bottleneck (the Brynglas Tunnels) are being realised. An expansion of VSL would only cover the eastern section (Junction 23 to Junction 24) and the western section (Junction 28 to Junction 29). These sections are well aligned and relatively free flowing, so that while there may be some additional benefits derived from regulating traffic speeds on these sections, the overall impact of this is likely to be limited. Summary: Requires widening which has been demonstrated to perform poorly. Extending VSL is feasible but with limited potential for additional benefits beyond that already achieved at the Brynglas Tunnels. D) Improvements to Local Roads Mr Waller s proposal of improvements to roads in Newport to relieve congestion, e.g. increasing capacity of some of the junctions on the SDR, and improvements to other roads does not make clear which other local roads he has in mind, making it difficult to assess precisely. In the absence of more details of the proposal, it has been assumed that it is broadly the same as the layout previously appraised in Alternative 1: Blue Route of the Objectors Suggested Alternatives Report (Document 4.7.2). The Blue Route considered improvements to the A48 Southern Distributor Road (SDR) and A4810 (known locally as the Steelworks Access Road). The Blue Route was also appraised in more detail in the Appraisal of Objectors Alternative Blue Route Proposals Report (Document 6.2.35). The appraisals demonstrated that the Blue Route would relieve less than 10% of traffic on nearly all sections of the existing M4 and would marginally increase the traffic levels on the heaviest trafficked section between J28 and J29. Overall in the design year of 2037 the Blue Route would reduce traffic volumes on the existing M4 by between 3 and 4% (see Bryan Whittaker s rebuttal evidence WG/REB/OBJ 0247 1 Prof Cole at 3.1.20 3.1.23). While these percentages are based on a half toll the proportion of traffic volume extracted would be similar or more likely less under a no toll scenario since the Blue Route would not have the capacity to attract any further transfer fron the M4. The proposals would result under a no toll scenario in a BCR of 1 (PIQ 152). Based on the assumption that Mr Waller s proposal consists of local road improvements similar to those proposed as part of the Blue Route, and in lieu of any detail of the precise nature of the proposal, it can therefore be inferred that the proposal would also relieve in the region of 3 to 4% at best of motorway traffic and result in a BCR of around 1. Summary: A minor reduction in motorway traffic of some 3 to 4%; BCR of approximately 1.
Conclusion: Measures in Combination Each of the measures considered individually above would broadly result in either or both of two outcomes achieving only a small reduction in motorway traffic, or resulting in a high cost/low benefit (and therefore a low BCR). The measures have not been appraised in combination and it should be considered that the inteventions, when delivered as a package, some of the measures will have complemantary impacts, whilst some of the measures may be acting in competition. For example, improving the local road network and improving public transport will make it more feasible to close junctions thereby being complimentary, whilst it is also possible that there would be a competition between some of the measures. For instance, the closure of junctions on the existing M4 would put more pressure on local roads which might undermine the efficacy and thus attractiveness of road based public transport. If, however, it is assumed that the reduction in traffic on the existing M4 would be cumulative then the closure of M4 junctions, the construction of the Blue Route and a comprehensive measure of public transport measures would extract less than 15% of the traffic in the design year of 2037 (6% for PT, 5% for junction closures and 4% for the Blue Route). This figure of 15% is extremely optimistic because it assumes the upper bound amount of traffic reduction for each component and that they are additive. Between 2011 and 2016 the volume of traffic on the M4 increased by an average of 12% (see Bryan Whittaker s revised proof (1.2.6) pages 5 6, tables 3.1 and 3.2. Given that there was already a widely acknowledged problem to be solved even in 2011 and 2012 (that certainly was the position of the original proponents of the Blue Route when it was first advanced) it is apparent that even in combination these measures would not be sufficient to extract the amount of traffic required to alleviate serious congestion on the existing M4. Online widening at Brynglas tunnels would increase the capacity of the existing road at that point but the traffic benefit to be derived would be relatively slight in comparison to the costs and the pinch point on the M4 would be moved to the east. Much of the detailed quantitative analysis which underpins this assessment was conducted on the basis of a half toll scenario. That quantitative analysis suggests that even in combination these alternative measures would not solve the problem. The removal of the tolls increases the volume of traffic along the corridor and further undermines the adequacy of the alternative measures. It should also be noted that this assessment of the merit of a combination of measures ignores in favour of those measures certain practical impediments pertaining to their implementation. For example, online widening of the Brynglass Tunnels and the construction of Blue Route could not be achieved as quickly as the construction of the Published Scheme. Similarly, the congestion caused during construction should the Blue Route and online widening be undertaken would be a significant detriment. It can therefore be concluded qualitatively that even in combination, the measures would not provide sufficient long term capacity and serious congestion would remain on the M4. To the extent that some level of relief would be provided by online widening and the Blue Route the costs would outweigh the benefits. Appraising some of the various sub options is challenging because of a lack of specificity. Individual public transport improvements or smaller scale local road improvements may be good value for money in their own right but will fail to deliver benefits of the scale of that of the Published Scheme. From an economic perspective, it is acknowledged that the BCR for the various options when delivered as a package may be higher than when considered in isolation. Notwithstanding this, similar interventions which have undergone economic appraisal (online widening, junction closures and the Blue Route) exhibit low BCRs and in the case of online
widening and junction closures perform very poorly. Therefore, the additional benefits derived from delivering these interventons are highly unlikely to result in the package delivering value for money. Copy of Mr Waller s email dated 31/1/18: